The Other Side

But today’s piece is not about plots in novels. It is about something more serious; things many overlook, points that would be inputs to planning and pitfalls that should be avoided. These are also called lessons of the past; weaknesses that must be strengthened before they become problems. I call them – the other side, of projects.

There is a long list of projects that can be tackled here that I am thinking I need three issues to discuss all of them. I bet those in government would not like to think about them, many prefer to look the other way, or totally ignore them only to face up to the problem years later.

Ok let’s go.

DPWH commissioned consultants based in Manila who discussed the features of the multi-billion pesos second San Juanico Bridge. After their online presentation to the RDC Infrastructure and Utilities Development Committee a few months ago, I commented that there are two features that were problematic in the case of the existing bridge, and both 2 presenters did not know much about these despite the conduct of data gathering for the multi-million feasibility study.

First, is the height of the bridge. Ship owners and local traders commented that the bridge was too low thereby restricting the height of the ships that can pass through the bridge without knocking off its top.

There was a story that a shipping company had to cut off the last deck of a ship to make sure the vessel can pass under the San Juanico bridge.

When asked, the consultants did not seem to know. Just saying: is that true? The government paid them several million pesos to do a thorough data gathering and yet they did not know those “defects” of the existing bridge? That’s what I call tabletop planning, with inadequate fieldwork. Whenever that kind of planning is done, the people suffer.

But at least they seemed to agree that they will run through their models to see how much more structure they must design to accommodate a higher bridge.

Second, this is about the weight of the trucks that can be allowed to pass the bridge. They were aware of this, but they reasoned in defense that this would increase the cost of building the bridge. Of course, it would increase the cost. The region needs a bridge that does not impede or restrict the flow of cargoes.

Well, at least their lack of knowledge meant they needed to do more research. The answer to the “other side” questions mentioned earlier will lead to a more functional bridge that will boost the region’s economy for a very long time.

The next project that deserves a review here is the Babatngon Transhipment hub. While the construction of this port has for decades been a clamor of the traders of Tacloban City, there is one nagging point.

This is the lack of cargo to be shipped out of the port. If the ship owners will not have cargo for the return trip, they will recover costs by increasing the cost of transport and adding the transport cost for the return trip. This solution will double the cost of transporting cargo. This situation defeats the very advantage of transporting by sea over transporting by land. Trucks returning to Manila can pick up cargoes along certain points on the way back to Manila thus adding revenues for the round-trip route. Ships cannot do this.

It is obvious that the solution to this dilemma is to expand and intensify the range of cargoes to be shipped out of the Babatngon port. This is a solution that goes beyond the mandate of the Philippine Ports Authority. Close inter-agency coordination is needed.

I mentioned here last week the advisability of encouraging the Philippine Export Zone Authority to look for a private sector group that will set up an export processing zone in Babatngon.

Yes, the projects are important for the socio-economic growth of Eastern Visayas. But their planners and implementors must be conscious of the issues on the other side.

#WeTakeAStand #OpinYon #OpinYonColumn #ColumnbyAttyJunieGoSoco #IAmBack